[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities
    Like Ingo, I like the approach.

    But I am concerned it won't work, as stated.

    Unfortunately, my blithering ignorance of how one might want to
    distribute irq's across a system is making it difficult for me
    to say for sure if this works or not.

    The thing about /dev/cpuset that I am afraid will get in the way
    with this use of cpusets to place irqs is that we can really only
    have a single purpose hierarchy below /dev/cpuset.

    For example, lets say we have:

    batch job 1
    batch job 2

    I guess, with your "cpuset: cpuset irq affinities" patch, we'd start
    off with /dev/cpuset/irqs listing the irqs available, and we could
    reasonably decide to move any or all irqs to /dev/cpuset/boot/irqs,
    by writing the numbers of those irqs to that file, one irq number
    per write(2) system call (as is the cpuset convention.)

    Do these irqs have any special hardware affinity? Or are they
    just consumers of CPU cycles that can be jammed onto whatever CPU(s)
    we're willing to let be interrupted?

    If for reason of desired hardware affinity, or perhaps for some other
    reason that I'm not aware of, we wanted to have the combined CPUs in
    both the 'boot' and 'big_special_app' handle some irq, then we'd be
    screwed. We can't easily define, using the cpuset interface and its
    conventions, a distinct cpuset overlapping boot and big_special_app,
    to hold that irq. Any such combining cpuset would have to be the
    common parent of both the combined cpusets, an annoying intrusion on
    the expected hierarchy.

    If the actual set of CPUs we wanted to handle a particular irq wasn't
    even the union of any pre-existing set of cpusets, then we'd be even
    more screwed, unable even to force the issue by imposing additional
    intermediate combined cpusets to meet the need.

    If there is any potential for this to be a problem, then we should
    examine the possibility of making irqs their own cgroup, rather than
    piggy backing them on cpusets (which are now just one instance of a
    cgroup module.)

    Could you educate me a little, Peter, on what these irqs are and on
    the sorts of ways people might want to place them across CPUs?

    > + if (s->len > 0)
    > + s->len += scnprintf(s->buf + s->len, s->buflen - s->len, " ");

    The other 'vector' type cpuset file, "tasks", uses a newline '\n'
    field terminator, not a space ' ' separator. Would '\n' work here,
    or is ' ' just too much the expected irq separator in such ascii lists?
    My preference is toward using the exact same vector syntax in each
    place, so that once someone has code that handles one, they can
    repurpose that code for another with minimum breakage.

    I won't rest till it's the best ...
    Programmer, Linux Scalability
    Paul Jackson <> 1.940.382.4214

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-29 21:57    [W:0.022 / U:14.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site